Jump to content

Which Was The Best Decade For "Star Trek"?


All Things Considered, What was the Best Decade for "Star Trek"?  

54 members have voted

  1. 1.

    • Fifties
    • Sixties
    • Seventies
    • Eighties
    • Nineties
    • Noughties

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yes you heard that right I like Voyager.

Dear Sir - you are not alone.


"Yoosas craaaaaaaaazy!"

Honestly my favorite Trek between the end of DS9 and the new movie was the last couple of years of Enterprise after Manny Coto came on board. They tried, and their heart was in the right place, they just didn't have all the pieces to make it totally work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Listener, it walks a fine line on being a reboot. It is a genius way on how they made the film though, if you have seen it then you'd understand, if not then you need to see it once it's available on DVD this fall.

I was quite skeptical about the new film ever since it's conception but my opinion was quickly changed once I saw it in theater.

Edit: I'm obviously not going to give away plot details since if The Listener has not seen it I don't want to spoil anything for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it needed rebooting. Nothing ever does. But I like going back to the original characters, who I find more compelling than their successors, and that wouldn't really be feasible with the original actors. And since the result was an entertaining movie that drew praise from all sorts of audiences yet still remained true to the source material in many ways, I'd say the mission was successful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Star Trek was a reboot and it was not a reboot. It rebooted the franchise from a movie-making standpoint, by discarding the characters and plot developments of the previous four movies, and starting fresh, which was both risky and shrewd. Nemesis showed that even with a lot of special effects and an intriguingly personal villain, Spiner and Stewart alone couldn't carry a movie if the rest of the cast just basically stood there and watched. Never mind that Trekkies tore the movie apart for its logical and canonical shortcomings, because on the whole, all the Trekkies in the world are a drop in the bucket next to the "everybody else" that movies must attract to make money.

But story-wise, it is not a reboot because it is rooted firmly in established Star Trek tradition, and uses the most tried-and-true Trek plot device (can I say vehicle?) to create the opportunity to tell the story. What's a reboot, anyways? Comic books and their movies get "rebooted" by completely ignoring movies and issues that came before. Nolan's Batman franchise dips back into the original source material, and takes nothing from Burton or Schumacher's movies that couldn't be derived from the comics themselves; same with Burton/Schumacher not dwelling on the Batman movie from the 60's. Burton has his own unique Batman origin story, Nolan has his, Mask of the Phantasm has a Batman origin story, and each iteration of the comics has an origin story...and no franchise stands on the shoulders of others. They take the bare essential of the character, ignore the rest, and create their own new universe for the character, i.e. a reboot.

So Star Trek has Kirk, Spock, and Bones...but it doesn't. And one of those characters is there to remind you why the movie is not a reboot: because the movie does not ignore, or even destroy, what came before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.